The Keven Butler character is Jerry Lambert in a suit. In Bridgestones commercial he is Jerry Lambert in a lab coat. Now with out reading the contract the question comes down to when Jerry could start shooting with other game systems,

It's not even a question though. Whether the contract is valid or not, it's up for a judge to decide whether Bridgestone (and Nintendo) have benefited from a character created by Sony.

If Sony can prove damages to their brand, it's an open and shut case. And given that around the web people were saying "hey look, Kevin Butler advertising Nintendo," it shouldn't be that hard to prove.

sony's contract with Jerry Lambert ended at the end of august 2012. the bridgestone commercial with him playing the wii started in september three days after his contract ended.

"was entered into on 7th August 2009 and contained an exclusivity clause that prevented Lambert from working for PlayStation competitors, such as Nintendo. The contract expired at the end of August 2012. The Bridgestone ads appeared on TV three days later"

sony's just acting like a jilted lover who has been dumped by their girl and found out she's dating someone else days later. it's just pathetic on sony's part

Nobody is talking about copyrighting anything. What I'm saying is, Sony could easily say that Nintendo (through Bridgestone) is trying to cash in on the goodwill/publicity that Sony has built (which is what they ARE saying) and that Jerry Lambert was accomplice to that.

All it would take is for a judge to rule that the above was their intention - and given Lambert's popularity as Kevin Butler, it's not going to be hard for their lawyers to build a case.

It's nothing like Henry Winkler. It WOULD be like Henry Winkler if a company put millions of dollars into turning him into a icon for a certain product or brand and then another company used Henry Winkler in advertising a rival product.

@vega275

Sony isn't a person, it's a company and it's going to react if it has been screwed over. Using your own analogy though, this situation is more like maxing your credit cards trying to impress a girl and then finding out she's gone and used the dresses and jewellery you bought to impress your sports team rival. Wouldn't you want a little of that cash back?

I've never said sony is a person. I said they are "ACTING" like a jilted lover.

"this situation is more like maxing your credit cards trying to impress a girl and then finding out she's gone and used the dresses and jewellery you bought to impress your sports team rival"

that's not the case at all. because nintendo didn't hire jerry lambert to promote the wii. jerry contract was up at the end of august. so he was free to do whatever he wanted.this will in no way hurt sony. because it's sells wasn't dependant on kevin butler or wasn't purchased because he was their mascot.so in no way is sony screwed over. since their business isn't hurting because of this.

so as you put it. sony maxed out their credit card buying sexy outfits only to findout that after the breakup she's wearing it for someone else. sorry buddy but you can't get anything back from that. if that was the case, I'm sure every man could get back everything he spend on a past relationship.

Exactly. Sony are saying that Nintendo (through Bridgestone) are using the goodwill and publicity of the Kevin Butler character to advertise a rival product. It doesn't matter if the contract is up, that's just not on legally.

It has nothing to do with Lambert's likeness per se, but to do with what that likeness currently means. If you want proof that people think of him as Kevin Butler, you only need to see the articles when the video was aired. That alone proves Sony's point.

(Note: it'd still be a trademark issue even if Sony aren't strictly using his likeness as a trademark)

@vega275

His contract has nothing to do with it and if that's the defence Lambert/Bridgestone are using - they're going down in this case. He's played an iconic character that represents a brand, and if anybody really thinks that's going to go away after three days of being out of contract, they just have no chance.

There are people that simply don't realize that Jerry Lambert is a person. He's Kevin Butler. And to see Kevin Butler advertising a Nintendo product is confusing a brand. That might not out and out hurt Sony, but it certainly undermines years of advertisement.

At best, this isn't a very bright thing for any of the involved parties to do. At worst, this was a specific move by somebody to get a bit of cheap publicity by using the Kevin Butler actor in advertising a rival product. Either way, whatever you might think of it, there's no way Sony is going to lose this. All the articles and comments saying "Kevin Butler advertising Nintendo?!" prove that the suit is valid.

@sikbeta

No, but they have the legal right to sue if they feel their money and hard work is being used to promote a rival brand, and it's fair to say that that's how it turned out (no matter what the original intentions).

@The Inevitable Disagrees

So let's say Major Nelson leaves Microsoft and starts using his website to promote Sony games. Microsoft has the right to sue, because the website came to get a following thanks to their promotion and support.

Jerry Lambert was a figurehead for the PlayStation brand, and to then advertise a Nintendo product despite people knowing him as that PlayStation figurehead was ill-advised.

@Matgrowcott, The second his contract was up, he was free to work wherever he pleases. That he is recognized as Kevin Butler is no consequence, that is a character he played, he is not that character for the rest of his life.

By your logic, Hugh Laurie is now unable to act again because he's firmly recognised as Gregory House and that hurts the owners of the House brand despite him now being out of contract. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. He is an actor, and Sony have no right to dictate where and ion what capacity he works after his contract with them has run out. If he was still currently under contract with Sony, that would be different as he'd still be bound by the terms of their agreement.

He's not. Butler is a suit and tie, not a lab coat. As for line delivery, Sony do not entirely own that, part of that IS the actor playing the role. Unless you're trying to claim that Sony can now own inflection and attitude. His contract is up, they don't own the mans face or voice, and they cannot restrict him from working for whoever he wants.

Do you even listen to yourself? Jerry is not Sony's property! As soon as Jerry's contract is over he can work for whom he damn well pleases. Sony has to prove that the character he played is Kevin Butler VP of whathever in order to win the lawsuit. Good luck with that since it wasnt given an identity to the character Jerry played on the Bridgestone commercial. Sony only has rights to that fictional character but has right to decide what Jerry can or cant do in his professional life.

Im also astounded that someone disagreed with cl1983 comment "Sony could only copy right Keven Butler as a vp of sony, not Jerry Lambert natural looks." Does Jerry need to make a plastic surgery to land a new job? Really? What is this? Bizarro world?

See, this is what people are getting wrong. Butler wasn't just a role that Lambert played, it was a character in a series of advertisements. He was selling a brand. Comparing Lambert to Laurie in House is completely off-base. You won't ever see Rowan Atkinson advertising a debit card that isn't from Barclays using a character similar to Johnny English; you won't ever see "Monkey" advertising Sky TV or Virgin Media.

If Laurie finished his contract with L'oreal however, and then started advertising some rival brand of male product three days later, you can bet your bottom dollar that L'oreal would be fairly angry and they WOULD sue.

The fact that his contract expired isn't necessarily important (although it might be, we'll have to see what the judge says). It all comes down to whether Sony's image (via the Kevin Butler character) has been damaged by Bridgestone and Nintendo. Since that's what Sony are complaining about, the contract probably doesn't matter anyway.

I do agree with cl1983 though, in that there's little chance this will go to court. Bridgestone released an edited/reshot commercial, right? If they've done that, I imagine they've probably already made an out-of-court offer as well.

@Imalwaysright

No, Sony has prove that the character in the Bridgestone commercial could be mistaken for Kevin Butler. It could, it was. Take a look on comments here and on YouTube.

And further to that, Sony has no problem with Lambert working. They DO have a problem with the face of Kevin Butler saying how great Nintendo is. And it just so happens to be a problem that will easily go in their favour if it goes to court.

This is getting retarded. I don't really care that much for the guy (not funny in the slightest bit). Yet, what Sony is doing is downright foolish.

Sue the guy who did like 90% of the advertising for you this generation for appearing in another commercial that was loosely about another game console (mostly about tires), is just fucking retarded.

I hope Sony looses this case.

Sony does not own a person. If they win this lawsuit things could get really bad. First you have corporations being ruled as having the same rights as a person. Then if Sony wins this lawsuit, it sets the precedent that corporations can legally own the rights to a person? WTF has this world come to?

"And further to that, Sony has no problem with Lambert working. They DO have a problem with the face of Kevin Butler saying how great Nintendo is. And it just so happens to be a problem that will easily go in their favour if it goes to court." That is NOT Kevin Butler face. That is Jerry Lambert face. You do realize that we're talking about a real person dont you? Kevin Butler is a fictional character and could be played by you, me or any other man in the World. Sony doesnt own Jerry Lambert face or acting style and its preposterous to think they do. As soon as Jerry Lambert contract was over so were his obligations to Sony and like you and me he is a free man and can live his life the way he wants to.

Yeah, just like your girlfriend/wife is only your GF when she's with you. But when your not around, well, who cares right? She's not violating anything if she didn't expect you to find out about that party last night, right? Right?

Im pretty sure that sony will loose this if they are suing on the basis that the actor cant do anything without out them being able to claim he is using the "kevin buttler" character when he is just an actor.

If sony could win this then other actors would be getting sued all the time. If daniel craig did anything with action besides james bond, and he does, then they would sue him saying he is being James bond in some other movie every time he acts in a movie besides james bond.

And he also wasnt working for sonys competitors, he was working for a tire company who was giving away a wii.

Most people seem to confuse Sony's suit,they are suing because they fell bridgestone commercial with wii is being promoted by Mr.Lambert,who most recognize as Kevin Butler,if anyone sees the edited and unedited version you would notice his inclusion isn't needed and it's a bit suspicious or a coincidence that he's used in the promotion for the wii and if this is a petty suit the people at Sony would've sued sense he was on a tv show not long ago,I assume the commercial is either cash-in on his notoriety as a direct or indirect promotion because most did not know who he was until Sony,this is not a diss on his acting abilities but he was not known until he was used to sell games.

That might be true, but in some areas all you hear is about different tires.

In Detroit/Grand Rapids Michigan, All you hear about is Michelin tires and Goodyear (due to sports ads), next with Sears as far as tires. Bridgestone is known, but if someone merely says "Bridgestone" out of the blue, I don't think anyone would be thinking about tires.

Tempe/Phoenix Arizona, maybe;

In Chicago, Illinois everyone's probably still talking about Davins; I don't think tires are favored there except that whitewalls may be out of season (clashes with Davins).

"The contract between Sony and Wild Creek, Lambert's company, was entered into on 7th August 2009 and contained an exclusivity clause that prevented Lambert from working for PlayStation competitors, such as Nintendo. The contract expired at the end of August 2012. The Bridgestone ads appeared on TV three days later. Sony said Lambert started work for Bridgestone in February 2012 while still under contract with SCEA, and so Sony claims a breach."

I'm pretty sure the contract is formulated in a way that it was not allowed for him to promote other consoles. In that case I think SONY is absolutely right to sue. But on the other hand the contract ended before the new spot aired and so I think it's fine for the guy to do whatever he pleases. What makes me a little unsure is that the spot was produced while the contract was still in effect. I think it's a little stupid from both sides. Jerry Lambert shouldn't have produced the spot but also SONY shouldn't have sued since the airtime was fine and if the spot was produced in the 2 days before everything would have been fine.

was he REALLY advertising the wii? Or was he simply standing to the side while someone else played?

I also dont see why sony think this will "confuse" consumers. Gamer commercials vs tire commercials. One is for younger audiences, one is for older audiences.

By some slim chance that an older audience member watches kids shows or specifically the sony butler commercials (which, made more of a boom on the web than real tv) then they will think to themself...

gosh, now im confused on who this guy really is...'scratches head' is he sony vp or tire guy #2?

Jerry Lambert is an actor who portrayed Kevin Butler. Bridgestone did not have Kevin Butler in their comercial, they had Jerry Lambert. Just because he played Kevin Butler dose not mean he is now and forever Kevin Butler. The only place that character and name will follow him is on his resume along with all the other roles he has played. This would be like saying Christian Bale ruined The Dark Knight because he also played in Terminator Salvation, Sony is claiming they are hurting the Playstation brand because Jerry Lambert was in the bridgestone commercial. Jerry's contract was over with Sony before the commercial aired so this whole lawsuit is completely pointless and stupid.

I am afraid that Sony will lose this case. Sony can't prove Kevin Butler was in the Bridgeston commercial. Only his "likeness" was in the commercial. You can't stop a business from hiring an actor just because the actors face is well known for a different product.

He's an actor. He acts.

Sony, just save those $$$ on lawyer fees, you need $$$ too much right now then to spend in on hopes of making more $$$ by suing other companies for hiring actors that you once used for your own marketing and advertising purposes.

How do you know what Sony or Bridgestone can prove? Or who will win for that matter? You're just a regular Joe looking in, I think it's best to let the judges sort it out out since it's their profession. Until we see the full contract page by page how could you or I know what's fair?

Edit: @ Parappa

Exactly, why did Bridgestone edit Lambert with the Wii out of their commercial?

You're kidding right? Is the name "kevin butler" used in the commercial? NO so how can Sony prove that it's Kevin Butler? Actors can't change their face for every commercial because it was used in some other commercial.

You don't see movie studios suing other movie studios because an actor is being used that was once in their own movie.

Don't be foolish. What is presented in the commercial is the ONLY case Sony can bring to the table. There is NOTHING there. Only a the of an actor.

Use your head.

Edit

"Exactly, why did Bridgestone edit Lambert with the Wii out of their commercial? "

Due to the lawsuit. Until the final verdict, there was most likely a cease of all commercials with Jeremy Lambert implemented by the courts while investigations move forward. So instead of pulling all the commercials, he was just edited out. This is standard procedures in court battles.

Dante112, so you're questioning Lvl_up_gamer since he doesn't know the contract, but yet you agree with Parappa? Is Parappa part of Sony's legal department that he would know the contract 'page by page'?

"I am afraid that Sony will lose this case. Sony can't prove Kevin Butler was in the Bridgeston commercial. Only his "likeness" was in the commercial. You can't stop a business from hiring an actor just because the actors face is well known for a different product.."

Wow, you know nothing about these kinds of cases or the clauses actors get. You think this is a first? Read up on trademark law and what exactly it does and tries to curb. While you're at it, tell Andrew Garfield to show up in a Spider-man likeness in Avengers 2 even though Sony/Columbia owns the Spider-man IP for film and Disney owns the Avengers. It's all Marvel right? He's just an actor right? Can't stop him from working. Yeah, no.

The Naked Cowboy successfully settled with M&Ms when he sued them for using his 'likeness' in an M&M commercial, and that was an animated parody. Robert Burck doesn't look like a milk chocolate pellet in real life. They didn't call the M&M by the guy's name either...yet bang...they paid him off in the end.

It doesn't take much to prove brand confusion in this case. One only has to google to see the Kevin Butler name all over his story. You helped Sony inadvertantly by saying "they only used the Kevin Butler likeness." That's all ya need. If the Old Spice guy ever pops up in the background of a Goodyear commercial, half naked applying some speedstick when he has no sanely reason to even be there with a Speedstick in the first place, Goodyear will be makin' some quick edits and settling out of court with OldSpice too.

Sony will lose its case against Bridgestone. They have ZERO leverage there. They merely dragged Bridgestone in as part of the deep pocket principle. In a lawsuit you try to include as many people as possible including any companies possibly linked that have deeper pockets for settlement purposes. Sony figures there is an opportunity to make a quick buck here.

Jeremy Lambert unfortunately is the one that is potentially liable here. The real argument is going to come down to what the courts will deem "working for a competitor" in Jeremy's chosen profession. Does the mere act of recording and working in the production commercial constitute breach or is it the actual airing of the commercial that is a breach...and if the later is the case then being that it aired 3 days after the contract expiration then is this lawsuit frivolous given the contract was null and void at the time of airing?

That's all true, although it would depend on the actual complaint if they would judge that issue to put it into precedent.

It would also depend on if Lambert had some sort of non-compete clause in his contract. Something akin to saying he could not work either directly or indirectly with a competing brand for a specific period of time after the contract ended...typically 6-12 months in the game industry. I imagine with how high-profile he was for the company he definitely would have had one of these, and it possibly could have been longer than 12 months.

I imagine if there was no Wii in this commercial then there would not have been a lawsuit. That in itself is what got Sony's attention I think. The rest may just be legal wordings in order to proceed with the case.

As far as the character goes he plays it pretty well, so if Bridgestone was looking for that kind of quirky character he already had the resume to prove he was the guy. However if Bridgestone purposely sought him out as "that PS guy" then they and Lambert could both be held liable.

I'm very interested in how this case will turn out, and I'm reserving judgment until more facts come out. I'm not holding my breath though, as it will probably be settled out of court and the records sealed.

Well I personally was confused when I saw Kevin Butler in the Bridgestone commercial playing the Wii. It totally wacked out my senses and free thinking and I automatically switched sides in the great console war.

So if it is all cut and dry as people seem to think it is then why did Bridgestone edit him out. They obviously have something to hide or else they wouldn't have bothered to do that at all and just cry foul. As per usual no one knows the details but are so eager to say 'Sony bad' that they don't care.Besides who really cares if they win or not? What does this have to do with gaming? I wish we would talk more about gaming then lawsuits and business data. Microsoft acted like monsters and greedy bastards for years and they are still here pretending as if they weren't. So why the doom of Sony because of this one thing? No one cares. I just want to know when my games are coming out.

I'm a gamer and what I see is an actor who's been in Geico, Bridgestone, and Holiday Inn commercials. Not to mention making numerous TV sitcom appearances. Kevin Butler is not the only character Jerry Lambert has been known for.

If proven that Jerry breached his contract and was working on the ad with Bridgestone last Feb 2012 before his contact expired last April 2012, then Sony may win this case. Otherwise, I don't see how Sony can prove their claims that Jerry was acting like Kevin Butler in the ad.